Intermediate Math Problem of the Week 9/14/2017

  • Context: Challenge 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PF PotW Robot
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around an intermediate math problem involving a continuous function that satisfies a specific inequality. Participants explore various methods to prove that the integral of the function exists under certain conditions. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and problem-solving approaches.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest taking the limit as ##x\to\infty## of both sides of the inequality, assuming that the existence of the integral implies ##\lim_{x\to\infty}f(x) = 0##, though this is questioned due to counterexamples.
  • One participant mentions a specific function, ##f(x) = x^2 e^{-x^8\sin^2x}##, to illustrate that the limit of the function does not necessarily exist even if the integral converges.
  • Another participant expresses doubt about the validity of a proposed solution, indicating that they do not believe it to be true.
  • Some participants acknowledge corrections to earlier claims, such as the need for a more precise condition regarding ##\alpha(x)## in a previous post.
  • Concerns are raised about the applicability of Gronwall's inequality given the condition ##B < 0##, with examples provided to illustrate potential contradictions.
  • A later reply admits that the initial application of Gronwall was incorrect but suggests that the proof method can be adapted for the current problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of certain approaches and solutions, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain. There is no consensus on the correctness of the proposed solutions or methods.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on specific assumptions about the behavior of the function at infinity, and the discussion highlights the limitations of applying certain mathematical theorems under the given conditions.

PF PotW Robot
Here is this week's intermediate math problem of the week. We have several members who will check solutions, but we also welcome the community in general to step in. We also encourage finding different methods to the solution. If one has been found, see if there is another way. Occasionally there will be prizes for extraordinary or clever methods.

Let ##f : [a,\infty)\to \Bbb R## be a continuous function that satisfies the inequality ##\displaystyle f(x) \le A + B\int_a^x f(t)\, dt##, where ##A## and ##B## are constants with ##B < 0##. If ##\displaystyle \int_a^\infty f(x)\, dx## exists, show that ##\displaystyle \int_a^\infty f(x)\, dx \le -A/B##.

(PotW thanks to our friends at http://www.mathhelpboards.com/)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ISamson, S.G. Janssens, I like Serena and 2 others
Physics news on Phys.org
My first instinct would be to simply take the limit as ##x\to\infty## of both sides of the inequality, on the assumption that if
$$\lim_{x\to\infty} \int_{a}^{x} f(t)dt$$
exists, then ##\lim_{x\to\infty}f(x) = 0##. But once upon a time, @micromass taught me about functions like ##f(x) = x^2 e^{-x^8\sin^2x}##, so I'm not sure that will work.

Edit: for folks who want to see what trickery is at work with this function:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+x^2e^{-x^8\sin^2(20x)}+from+0+to+3
The spikes get taller, thinner, and further apart as ##x\to\infty##. This means that the function is integrable all the way out to infinity, even though ##\lim_{x\to\infty} f(x)## doesn't exist.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ackbach
TeethWhitener said:
My first instinct would be to simply take the limit as ##x\to\infty## of both sides of the inequality, on the assumption that if
$$\lim_{x\to\infty} \int_{a}^{x} f(t)dt$$
exists, then ##\lim_{x\to\infty}f(x) = 0##. But once upon a time, @micromass taught me about functions like ##f(x) = x^2 e^{-x^8\sin^2x}##, so I'm not sure that will work.

This is Ackbach on Math Help Boards, and I'm the Director for the Undergraduate POTW there ( = Intermediate PotW here on PF).

That approach is not going to work, I agree. It's the first thought that occurred to me!
 
Alright, here's what I have so far.
Let
$$\int_{a}^{x} f(t)dt = F(x)$$
It follows that ##F'(x) = f(x)##. The inequality becomes (with some rearrangement)
$$F'(x) - BF(x) - A \leq 0$$
In the case where the equality holds, we can solve the resulting differential equation to get:
$$F_{eq}(x) = -\frac{A}{B} + ce^{Bx}$$
We note that ##\lim_{x\to\infty} F_{eq}(x) = -A/B##, or in other words:
$$\int_a^\infty f(x)\, dx = -\frac{A}{B}$$
In the case where the equality doesn't hold, we have
$$F'(x) - BF(x) - A = -\alpha$$
where ##\alpha > 0##.
All this does is change the solution of the differential equation to
$$F(x) = -\frac{A-\alpha}{B} + ce^{Bx}$$
Taking the limit as ##x\to\infty## gives
$$\int_a^\infty f(x)\, dx = -\frac{A-\alpha}{B}$$
Since ##B<0##, we have that
$$-\frac{A-\alpha}{B}<-\frac{A}{B}$$
or, combining the previous two results:
$$\int_a^\infty f(x)\, dx < -\frac{A}{B}$$
when the equality doesn't hold. Combining the two cases (##\alpha = 0## and ##\alpha \neq 0##) gives us the desired result:
$$\int_a^\infty f(x)\, dx \leq -\frac{A}{B}$$
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ackbach and Greg Bernhardt
Nice problem.
Write ##F(x) := \int_a^x{f(t)\,dt}##. In these terms, it was given that
$$
f(x) \le A + B F(x), \qquad \forall\,x \ge a.
$$
Integrate both sides from ##a## to ##b > a## and divide by ##b - a## to find
$$
\frac{F(b)}{b - a} \le A + \frac{B}{b - a}\int_a^b{F(x)\,dx}. \qquad (\ast)
$$
Since it was given that ##F(\infty) := \lim_{b \to \infty}{F(b)}## exists, it follows that
$$
\frac{1}{b - a}\int_a^b{F(x)\,dx} \to F(\infty), \qquad \text{as } b \to \infty
$$
and we have from ##(\ast)## that
$$
0 \le A + B F(\infty),
$$
and, using that ##B < 0##, this yields ##F(\infty) \le \tfrac{A}{-B}##.
(I don't want to enter any competition.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ackbach, Charles Link and Greg Bernhardt
TeethWhitener said:
Alright, here's what I have so far.
Let
$$\int_{a}^{x} f(t)dt = F(x)$$
It follows that ##F'(x) = f(x)##. The inequality becomes (with some rearrangement)
$$F'(x) - BF(x) - A \leq 0$$
In the case where the equality holds, we can solve the resulting differential equation to get:
$$F_{eq}(x) = -\frac{A}{B} + ce^{Bx}$$
We note that ##\lim_{x\to\infty} F_{eq}(x) = -A/B##, or in other words:
$$\int_a^\infty f(x)\, dx = -\frac{A}{B}$$
In the case where the equality doesn't hold, we have
$$F'(x) - BF(x) - A = -\alpha$$
where ##\alpha > 0##.
How do you know that ##\alpha## doesn't depend on ##x##? If it does, solving the DE would be impossible, because you wouldn't know the exact nature of the dependence. I'm not sure this approach works, either, I'm afraid.
 
Krylov said:
Nice problem.
Write ##F(x) := \int_a^x{f(t)\,dt}##. In these terms, it was given that
$$
f(x) \le A + B F(x), \qquad \forall\,x \ge a.
$$
Integrate both sides from ##a## to ##b > a## and divide by ##b - a## to find
$$
\frac{F(b)}{b - a} \le A + \frac{B}{b - a}\int_a^b{F(x)\,dx}. \qquad (\ast)
$$
Since it was given that ##F(\infty) := \lim_{b \to \infty}{F(b)}## exists, it follows that
$$
\frac{1}{b - a}\int_a^b{F(x)\,dx} \to F(\infty), \qquad \text{as } b \to \infty
$$
Why must that be? This step could use a bit more justification, I think.
 
For what it's worth, I have posted one correct solution on MHB.
http://mathhelpboards.com/potw-university-students-34/problem-week-280-sep-12-2017-a-22306.html
Here's another:
By Gronwall's inequality,
$$f(x)\le A\cdot \exp\left(\int_a^x B \, dt\right) = A \, e^{B(x-a)}.$$
Integrating both sides yields
$$\int_a^{\infty}f(x) \, dx \le \int_a^{\infty}A \, e^{B(x-a)} \, dx = -\frac{A}{B}$$
by the integral inequality. The result follows.
 
Ackbach said:
How do you know that ##\alpha## doesn't depend on ##x##? If it does, solving the DE would be impossible, because you wouldn't know the exact nature of the dependence. I'm not sure this approach works, either, I'm afraid.
I don't think this is true.
Say ##\alpha = \alpha(x)##. Then you have the inhomogeneous equation:
$$F'(x)-BF(x) = A-\alpha(x)$$
where ##\alpha(x) > 0## everywhere. This is solved with an integrating factor to give:
$$F(x)=-\frac{A}{B} + ce^{Bx}-e^{Bx}\int^x e^{-Bt}\alpha(t)dt$$
But since ##\alpha(t)## and ##e^{whatever}## are both positive everywhere within the domain of integration, the integral always subtracts a positive number from ##-\frac{A}{B}##. So it's always less than ##-\frac{A}{B}##, which is the desired result.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ackbach
  • #10
TeethWhitener said:
I don't think this is true.
Say ##\alpha = \alpha(x)##. Then you have the inhomogeneous equation:
$$F'(x)-BF(x) = A-\alpha(x)$$
where ##\alpha(x) > 0## everywhere. This is solved with an integrating factor to give:
$$F(x)=-\frac{A}{B} + ce^{Bx}-e^{Bx}\int^x e^{-Bt}\alpha(t)dt$$
But since ##\alpha(t)## and ##e^{whatever}## are both positive everywhere within the domain of integration, the integral always subtracts a positive number from ##-\frac{A}{B}##. So it's always less than ##-\frac{A}{B}##, which is the desired result.

Fair enough! I'd accept this solution as correct.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Greg Bernhardt and TeethWhitener
  • #11
Ackbach said:
Fair enough! I'd accept this solution as correct.
:smile: One other thing: In post #9, ##\alpha(x) >0## should be ##\alpha(x) \geq 0##. But this doesn't change the conclusions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ackbach
  • #12
TeethWhitener said:
:smile: One other thing: In post #9, ##\alpha(x) >0## should be ##\alpha(x) \geq 0##. But this doesn't change the conclusions.
I'd agree. By the way, your approach in Post # 2 can be modified (as Opalg did in the posted solution on MHB) if you construct a clever subsequence ##\{x_n\}## such that ##\{f(x_n)\}\to 0##.
 
  • #13
Ackbach said:
Why must that be? This step could use a bit more justification, I think.
It is because ordinary convergence of the improper integral (i.e. existence of ##\lim_{b \to \infty}{F(b)}## in ##\mathbb{R}##) implies convergence (to the same limit) of the Cesàro means. As I do not have a reference for this ready at hand, here is an argument for the present context:
Let arbitrary ##\epsilon > 0## be given and let ##x_{\epsilon} > 0## be such that ##|F(x) - F(\infty)| \le \tfrac{\epsilon}{3}## for all ##x \ge x_{\epsilon}##. Then, for ##b \gt x_{\epsilon}##,
$$
\left|\frac{1}{b - a}\int_a^b{F(x)\,dx} - F(\infty)\right| \le \left|\frac{1}{b - a}\int_a^{x_{\epsilon}}{F(x)\,dx}\right| + \left|\frac{1}{b - a}\int_{x_{\epsilon}}^b{F(x)\,dx} - F(\infty) \right|. \qquad (\dagger)
$$
The first term in the RHS can be made less than ##\tfrac{\epsilon}{3}## by choosing ##b## sufficiently large. The second term equals
$$
\left|\frac{1}{b - a}\int_{x_{\epsilon}}^b{(F(x) - F(\infty))\,dx} - \frac{x_{\epsilon} - a}{b - a}F(\infty)\right| \le \frac{\epsilon}{3} + \left|\frac{x_{\epsilon} - a}{b - a}F(\infty)\right| \le \frac{\epsilon}{3} + \frac{\epsilon}{3},
$$
by choosing ##b## possibly even larger. In summary, by choosing ##b## large enough, one guarantees that the LHS of ##(\dagger)## does not exceed ##\tfrac{\epsilon}{3} + \tfrac{\epsilon}{3} + \tfrac{\epsilon}{3} = \epsilon##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Greg Bernhardt and Ackbach
  • #14
Ackbach said:
Here's another:
By Gronwall's inequality,
$$f(x)\le A\cdot \exp\left(\int_a^x B \, dt\right) = A \, e^{B(x-a)}.$$
Integrating both sides yields
$$\int_a^{\infty}f(x) \, dx \le \int_a^{\infty}A \, e^{B(x-a)} \, dx = -\frac{A}{B}$$
by the integral inequality. The result follows.
In the problem it was assumed that ##B < 0##, so I cannot see how Gronwall applies here. For example, let ##a = 1## and ##f : [a,\infty) \to \mathbb{R}## be given by ##f(x) = \tfrac{1}{x^2}##. Then
$$
A + B \int_a^x{f(t)\,dt} = A + \frac{B}{a} - \frac{B}{x} \ge A + \frac{B}{a} = 1 \ge f(x), \qquad \forall\,x \ge a,
$$
if we choose ##A = 2## and ##B = -1##. Moreover, the improper integral of ##f## exists. However, ##A e^{B(x - a)} = 2 e^{-(x - 1)}## for ##x \ge a## so
$$
f(x) > Ae^{B(x - a)}
$$
for ##x## large enough.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: TeethWhitener and Ackbach
  • #15
Krylov said:
In the problem it was assumed that ##B < 0##, so I cannot see how Gronwall applies here.

Hmm, you may be right. Looking into it...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: S.G. Janssens
  • #16
You are correct that we can't use Gronwall directly. So my "solution" above is completely bogus. However, the proof method used for Gronwall can be adapted for this problem. Here's a note from my colleague Euge at MHB:

Set ##\displaystyle g(x) = \int_a^x f(t)\, dt##, and note ##g## satisfies the differential inequality ##g' - Bg \le A##, ##g(a) = 0##. Multiply the inequality by ##e^{-Bx}## to obtain ##\dfrac{d}{dx}(e^{-Bx}g) \le Ae^{-Bx}##, then integrate both sides from ##x = a## to ##x = s## (where ##s## is a fixed number ##> a##) to get ##e^{-Bs}g(s) \le -\dfrac{A}{B}(e^{-Bs} - e^{-Ba})##. Thus ##g(s) \le -\frac{A}{B}(1 - e^{B(s-a)})##. Now let ##s \to \infty## to obtain the result.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: S.G. Janssens

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K